Jang v Trustees of the Property of Lee, a bankrupt

Attempted discontinuation of the proceeding 5 On 29 July 2022, the applicant communicated to the Court via email that "the Applications in this matter will not proceed and the Appellant consents to them being dismissed". The parties were advised by the Court's registry that the appropriate course for discontinuing the proceeding was to file a notice of discontinuance or provide consent orders agreeing to the dismissal of the proceeding. 6 On 2 August 2022, the applicant attempted to file a notice of discontinuance in respect of the whole of the proceeding by consent of all parties. The parties notified the Court of this development, and the hearing on 3 August 2022 was accordingly vacated. 7 However, as it emerged from correspondence between the Court's registry and my chambers, the incorrect notice of discontinuance form (Form 48) had been used by the parties. The correct position, with regard to the nature and context of this proceeding, is stated in r 36.73 of the Rules, which provides that "[a]n appellant may discontinue an appeal by filing a notice of discontinuance of the appeal, in accordance with Form 126…" As such, the lodged notice of discontinuation was not accepted for filing. The Court's registry advised the parties of this, and instructed the parties to refile the notice of discontinuance using the appropriate form required by r 36.73. No attempt to refile was made by the applicant.

Interlocutory application for dismissal and costs 8 On 31 August 2022, the respondent filed an interlocutory application and supporting affidavit seeking orders that the application for an extension of time be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs on an indemnity basis. The parties were contacted by the Court with a view to listing the application for interlocutory hearing, however received no response from the parties until 27 October 2022. That correspondence stated, in effect, that the applicant's legal representatives had filed a notice of ceasing to act and no longer represented the applicant. The notice of ceasing to act identified another law firm as a possible contact for the applicant, however the nominated law firm subsequently clarified that as being in error. 9 In light of the applicant no longer being legally represented and the respondent's application to have the proceeding dismissed with costs, the matter was listed for case management hearing on 9 November 2022. That case management hearing was subsequently adjourned to 16 November 2022, and then adjourned again until 30 November 2022, to allow the respondent adequate time to establish contact with applicant and notify her of the upcoming hearing.

Respondent's attempts to contact the applicant 10 The respondent has filed a lengthy affidavit from a solicitor, which deposes to the extensive steps that have been taken to endeavour to contact the applicant in relation to today's application. I am satisfied that appropriate attempts have been made to contact the applicant, and the applicant has either been uncontactable, or has ignored those attempts to contact her. I note that the matter was called on for hearing at 9.45am today, and the matter was called outside the courtroom three times, with no appearance by the applicant. 11 I am satisfied in all the circumstances, particularly given the apparent desire on the part of the applicant some time ago to discontinue the proceedings, that it is appropriate for the applicant's application for an extension of time to be dismissed. That dismissal is essentially for want of prosecution of the appeal or the application for an extension of time, and failing to comply with directions of the court, and failing to attend a hearing relating to the appeal as required. 12 The court's power to dismiss an appeal in those circumstances is pursuant to rr 36.74 or 36.75 of the Rules. The sole remaining issue is in relation to costs. I am persuaded in all the circumstances that this was a case where there was never reasonable prospects of the applicant appealing the decision. The draft notice of appeal that accompanied the application for an extension of time contained no grounds and, in due course, it was apparent that when legal advice was received by the applicant, there were no viable grounds - hence the decision to withdraw the appeal. 13 Perhaps equally significantly is the fact that the applicant, following her communication of an intention to withdraw her appeal, has effectively abandoned the proceedings and has made no effort whatsoever to regularise the withdrawal of the proceeding, and the respondents have been put to considerable expense in endeavouring to finalise the proceedings. That fact alone is, in my view, sufficient to justify an order for indemnity costs.

Disposition 14 It follows that, in all the circumstances, the appropriate orders to make are that the application for an extension of time filed by the applicant on 12 May 2022 be dismissed and the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application on an indemnity basis. I certify that the preceding fourteen (14) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Wigney.